We should not stop there. Then we could eliminate unnecessary and undesirable but constitutional programs. However, can we admit that, as right as we are, this is a fantasy that will NEVER OCCUR?
Suppose that Republicans are more sympathetic to our program than are Demonrats (this is NOT to be taken for granted but just suppose). Suppose that we start with just the two programs you mentioned. Suppose that there are 435 Republican candidates for 435 full Congressional seats and each and every one makes a "contract with America" just to eliminate Social Security and Medicare (and Medicaid for that matter). Each makes his/her position quite public. After the votes are counted, not 3 of these candidates would be elected.
If you disagree, tell us what you think to back your position and make the election of many candidates a credible possibility. Convince me.
Our constitution's written provisions have been intentionally (liberal intentions) eroded since at least Lincoln and probably earlier than him.
If I understand you correctly, I respectfully disagree that “government” social spending programs should be eliminated.
More specifically, except for inexcusable ignorance of the 10th Amendment, there has never been anything stopping the states from establishing their own social spending programs, depending on what the legal majority of a state’s voting citizens want.
And after seeing the mess that corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification, state sovereignty-ignoring federal lawmakers can make out of any social spending program, I’m inclined to think that the citizens of a given state will be able to police the integrity of state programs much better than they can keep on eye on federal programs.
Thomas Jefferson had put it this way.
"The States should be left to do whatever acts they can do as well as the General Government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Harvie, 1790.
The bottom line is that the states need to get rid of the unconstitutional middleman, the federal government, with respect to managing their revenues.